Tonio Fenech to abstain in Divorce Bill vote
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech.
Last updated at 9.30p.m.
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech in a surprise announcement, said today that he would abstain in the vote on the Divorce Bill in Parliament.
Mr Fenech had, before the referendum, been strongly against the introduction of divorce and had been criticised about some of his newspaper articles involving religion.
Writing in The Malta Independent, Mr Fenech had insisted that: “the divorce debate cannot be divorced from faith” and God “has a say in the morals of... this country”.
Mr Fenech had also hit out at people who attended the processions of Our Lady of Sorrows and were irked by anti-divorce statements made during some of them.
“I think the occasion was actually very befitting of such a message; I am sure Our Lady is very sorrowful that Malta is considering divorce,” Mr Fenech wrote.
But after the referendum he had refused to make his position clear. On May 30 he had told The Times that he would not obstruct the divorce law once the people were in favour of it. “People voted for divorce, and it is parliament’s duty to have the law the people want. I will not be there to obstruct it,” Mr Fenech said.
“It’s important the law passes.”
Speaking during the debate in Parliament this evening, Mr Fenech said the people had made a choice in the referendum. He had a heavy heart about the outcome. The people's decision would have an impact on society, now and in the future. In societies where divorce was introduced the value of marriage had diminished. Permanence in many cases had been replaced by the temporary.
The debate on the good or bad of divorce was past, however. The decision had been taken. Parliament now had a duty to ensure that the law respected what the people voted for. It also needed to be ensured that what had been lost would be substituted by other measures which would strengthen marriage.
The government, he said, had introduced several family-friendly measures but more needed to be done. He felt that children should be educated on the importance of strong marriage, for society and for individuals. People needed to known what they were going in for when they decided to marry.
The Maltese people, despite voting for divorce, had been cautious in wanting a responsible divorce with several safeguards.
Mr Fenech said that post referendum, the debate was not about what needed to be done to improve the Divorce Bill, but about how every MP would vote. This was a disservice to the country and to those who said they wanted responsible divorce.
The country needed to look forward, not backward. This was not about winning and losing. Those who were in favour of divorce were not against marriage.
The Bill needed to be improved to truly respect the referendum question. It needed to include the mechanism to ensure that people who opted for divorce realised their responsibilities. It needed to provide the maintenance guarantees that were promised, notably with regard to children.
Mr Fenech said he defended the right of every MP to vote as he wished in Parliament, according to his conscience.
The obligation to ensure that this law was approved rested primarily on those MPs who had backed the bill for the holding of the referendum and proposed the referendum question. It was unfair that some of those MPs insisted that MPs who had been against divorce and the referendum question, should back the Divorce Bill.
Nonetheless, with a sense of responsibility, the PN and the Prime Minister had said that they would ensure that the Bill was approved, in line with the people's wishes, and they would work to ensure that the law provided what the people really wanted.
MPs should not be asked to declare their vote before the Bill was properly defined. The Bill did not reflect the referendum question because it did not give a proper voice to children and did not really guarantee maintenance to them.
A process had to be followed, Mr Fenech said, but for the curious, he would declare that he believed that divorce was wrong. He however respected the fact that the people voted for divorce, and therefore, he would not hinder the process. He would abstain and also propose amendments to improve the Bill.
Gulia: PM must vote in favour
Earlier in today's parliamentary sitting, Labour MP Gavin Gulia said his political position in favour of divorce was long standing and well known.
Parliament had a duty to respect the referendum result and should refine the Divorce Bill while observing the referendum question.
He felt that the prime minister as head of the government, had a duty to vote in favour of divorce and also urge his party to change its position and respect the people's decision.
Dr Gulia insisted that divorce did not destroy marriages. Marriage was already destroyed when people sought divorce.
The introduction of divorce was belated, he said. This could have happened as early as 1975, when civil marriage was introduced. That more marriages were breaking up now was irrelevant. Once this was a civil right, it should have been introduced earlier.
De Marco: Respecting the democratic process
Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that the introduction of civil marriage meant that the introduction of divorce was a matter of time. The number of separations was not alarming but it was increasing. Furthermore, a third of children were now born out of wedlock.
Society was changing in every sense. Values were changing too. Malta was part of the global village and change could not be ignored. The referendum showed what the people felt. Some argued that it would have been best had Parliament taken its decision instead of holding the referendum. He felt, however, that holding the referendum was wise.
The country now needed to move forward, respecting the outcome of the divorce while also respecting the views of those who were against divorce. It was notable that both political parties were saying that the result would be referendum would be respected.
He personally had reservations on the concept of no-fault divorce, but he felt it his duty to vote in favour of the Divorce Bill. He wished to tell his constituents that he meant no disrespect to those who had voted against divorce in the referendum. His vote was respecting the democratic process which they themselves had participated in. After all, his party was both Christian and Democratic in equal measure.
He said that once no-fault divorce was being introduced, one should consider consensual divorce as long as the four year separation period was observed. There should also be the possibility of more mediation services. One should consider more measures to safeguard the interests of children.
Concluding, Dr de Marco said MPs should work to strengthen the institution of marriage so that, hopefully, this law would be used as little as possible.
Censu Galea: Society is changing
Censu Galea said society was changing. One might like the change, but it could not be stopped. People whose marriage had failed should be helped to reintegrate in society.
Marlene Pullicino: Divorce needs to be backed with other law changes
Marlene Pullicino said the permanence of marriage could be eroded because of the presence of divorce. Marriage, however, failed for a multitude of reasons and she felt that people whose marriage had failed should be given the opportunity to achieve their purposes by trying again. The introduction of divorce was not an imposition on those who did not wish to divorce.
This legislation, she said, should come accompanied with other measures to help people who took this option, including tax and pension matters, efficiency in the law courts, legal aid and facilities where children could be heard.
In her personal view, divorce was not good for society, Ms Pullicino Orlando said, but she could not ignore the rights of individuals, more so when such rights were available abroad.
The right to choose became real when divorce was supported by the proper structures while efforts were also made to save marriages, Ms Pullicino said.
Mifsud Bonnici - Divorce Bill drafting is confusing
Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said the Divorce Bill as drafted was strange and confusing. He believed that the Bill would be approved by Parliament, but the problems of the new proposed system would arise when it was in effect.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that he would be voting against the Bill since it was not coherent and did not clearly regulate an issue as delicate as divorce.
He did not agree with divorce for secular reasons. The people had, however, voted in favour of divorce and thus there no longer was the need to question whether divorce should be introduced or not.
Parliament should now focus on the content of the Bill. He criticised the way the electorate had been presented with the referendum question which was very restricted and had limited the way divorce could be legally introduced.
Malta was the only country which offered free mediation services during separation proceedings to encourage couples to try to reach a compromise before resorting to separation. Over a period of seven years there had been 6,000 requests for separation. Of these, 12 per cent had reconciled.
The Bill was not promoting reconciliation. Indeed, certain clauses encouraged the parties to prolong separation proceedings for four years in order to be eligible to obtain divorce instead.
Furthermore the Bill was very vague on the issue of alimony and was not clear who would be eligible for this. Further clauses had to be included to clearly guarantee the right to maintenance.
In separation cases, the court took into consideration the reasons why a couple was separating. In domestic violence, the judgment and conditions presented by the court were different to those handed down to persons who had separated for no valid reason. The Bill was, however, proposing a no fault divorce; thus no criteria were being set and all were being put into the same basket.
The Bill did not offer a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Michael Farrugia: Need for laws on assisted procreation, cohabitation
Labour MP Michael Farrugia said divorce law was needed because it introduced legal order in an area which was unregulated as people opted for cohabitation. There, however, was also need for a law on cohabitation for those who did not marry.
Order was also needed in other sectors, such as artificial procreation. This divorce law was being debated a year after a private member's bill was presented by a Nationalist MP. Yet cohabitation had been mentioned since 1998 without any legislation, even though it affected thousands of people. And parliament had been speaking of legislation on assisted procreation for six years, again without any result.
Stephen Spiteri: Need for responsible legislation
Nationalist MP Stephen Spiteri said the will of the majority has to be respected, but Parliament needed to ensure that the law was enacted in a responsible manner for the benefit of society. It needed to be ensured that everyone realised his responsibilities in going in for a second marriage.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
67 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M Micallef
Jul 14th 2011, 09:54
Thanks to our MPs next General Election we have 3 options: PL, PN or ABSTAIN. Great idea
William Flynn
Jul 8th 2011, 14:28
Tonio Fenech says "it is parliament’s duty to have the law the people want" but then states that he will not execute the people's will but rely on others to do it. He says “It’s important the law passes.” and that "he had a heavy heart about the outcome (of the referendum)".
His heart isn't the part of his body that's heavy but the part designed for sitting on; and he should get off that part of the body and either do the job for which he is paid by the people to do, or ship out.
And that goes for Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici as well. What a disgrace.
Mario De Marco says his party is Christian. A party cannot be Christian; when was it baptised? Any political party with a religious name should be outlawed. Every party should be representative of all and of no religion.
Secular countries shouldn't have religious parties; that would be a sign of a theocracy.
Oh! And by the way, off with the joke of ARTICLE 2 of our Constitution which gives bishops the right to teach us what’s right and wrong. The very same bishops who were disobeyed by 70% of the voting public in the divorce referendum and who haven’t sorted out the orphan-raping priests saga after 7 years and a weeping Ratzinger promising results to the world press.
Alfred Fenech
Jul 9th 2011, 18:04
When we want our way, conscience comes up. Our representatives are there to be told what to do.
We expect them to execute our wishes (orders) to the letter. I will definately not repeat not abstain
in the next election. This referendum was an early issue of an election.
Anthony Schembri adami
Jul 8th 2011, 13:57
So they are ALL honerable men! Democracy is resect for miority and the result of the referendum was in no way a unanimous yes. This should be the finaf vote of Parlament,
Mr Lawrence Fenech
Jul 8th 2011, 13:14
Who cares!
Kevin Formosa
Jul 8th 2011, 12:32
Issa titla Tonio elezzjoni ohra!!! Qas fil-kunsill minn fejn bdejt!!
Stephen Koludrovic
Jul 8th 2011, 12:12
Dear Minister,
The choice was between an early election or a referendum, the latter was chosen, and the Yes won.
Men of deep religious conviction would rather resign, than vote or abstain against their moral views.
Raymond Bugeja
Jul 8th 2011, 12:11
I would like to look at this thing dispassionately. If I recall the figures correctly, 53% voted yes, 32% no and 90,000 abstained. I see no reason at all why parliament should not be allowed to take a similar democratic approach. There should be the numbers for the bill to pass. If there are not, there is an issue as to whether the consultative referendum is binding on parliament. Constitutionally it may not be. Morally I believe it is. The PM has already said he will ensure the bill passes. Why all the personal attacks against people who have a right, like the rest of us, to vote according to their moral and political conscience? I believe in liberalism but there are moral (and I do not mean religious) limits. I believe in state intervention on people’s freedoms when there may be harm caused by one or more citizens to one or more fellow citizens. So, for example, I endorse the freedom of divorce but I do not endorse the freedom of abortion. But that is another topic.
O Schembri
Jul 8th 2011, 11:44
Ibqaw sejrin hekk ta u tirrispettawx ir-rieda tal-poplu...tal-misthija!!! No problem Tonio...you will not get my vote either!
Mr Sandro Cremona
Jul 8th 2011, 12:08
Meta nasal biex nivvota, Jien ha nastjeni.
j brincat
Jul 8th 2011, 11:06
Has the PN become the party of abstainers?
Who said that the PN has the liberal elements within its fold?
(jb)
Zeza Borg
Jul 8th 2011, 10:50
The PN needs to remember that they are a lay party not a religious institution.It is unacceptable for any MP, minister or Prime Minister to go against what the public has decided
the will of the people must be reflected in parliament.
Debbie,She is going to be most welcome breath of fresh air in Parliament and a beacon of light to illuminate the way for Malta to finally emerge from the middle ages.Dr. Deborah Schembri ,Malta needs you.
K Cassar
Jul 9th 2011, 16:28
Yes the will should be reflected in the Parlamentary vote... and let us not forget those who abstained and those who voted against.... they are still part of jo public! especially considering that we were promised that this was a consultative referendum! Those who voted against have not suddenly stopped paying taxes... remember we're the ones going to be paying taxes for other people's abandoned children!
John Lusignan
Jul 8th 2011, 10:45
This has become a complete and utter joke and members of parliament that intend to abstain or vote NO should just resign as they obviously haven't understood that the population is sovereign! At this point I suggest all MP's who were planning to respect the sovereign vote of the referendum and were going to vote YES, to instead also state they they will vote NO placing all irresponsible MP's who have been saying they will abstain or vote no with their backs against the wall. Enough is enough. Shame on you all & mostly shame on the Prime Minister!
jack bristow
Jul 8th 2011, 10:13
Why focusing on Tonio Fenech when there's a lot of other MP's & Ministers commenting on their intentions regarding the vote? The Minister is having quite a hard time with everyone and everything pointing at him & his house affairs, plus a soon to come behind the corner election. The pendulum is coming back from the risen heights.
Mr Sandro Cremona
Jul 8th 2011, 10:02
Mr Tonio Fenech, you have gone against the will of the magority and also shown the Maltese nation that your best choice was that of a coward, to abstain. It takes a wist man to vote yes or no, but any fool can abstain. Maybe another €500 a week will change your conscions ?
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jul 8th 2011, 09:45
Such a lot of hot air in parliament. Some of the MP's speaking seem to be more interested in getting their names in the papers than in making any valid contributions. We should be more critical of the way these honourable gentlement conduct themselves. No wander the new parliament is being built between a theatre and a ditch.
Mr john vella
Jul 8th 2011, 11:13
@Mario allow me to take of my hat off! Where did you get this one? My goodness it is so good the editor should make a cartoon on this topic.
An excellent observation to the fact when you hear them in parliament and meet them in the street (if you are lucky) one has to say is this the same person?
Alfred Fenech
Jul 8th 2011, 09:32
The people have spoken and our representatives turn a deaf ear. No cukkini... As long as they take the salarys , honoraria and all the perks that go with the job.... they do what they like.. Come election .....hope the people will vote with their brains and not the heart.. We are being lead by the nose by lawyers when there should be ARCHITECTS .....
Mr R ferriggi
Jul 8th 2011, 08:50
what hypocrisy.
from both sides of parliament.
the people have spoken!!!
YOU MPs are there to EXECUTE the people's wishes. you are not there to do what you want.
if they cannot accept a referendum result,,,,,,,,, they are not getting any votes from me.
i find this totally unacceptable. not to mention i find it hypocritical no end.
NO ONE IS BEING FORCED to make use of divirce, after all. it is going to be there for those who want and need it.
the people have spoken!!!!
Beppe Pisani
Jul 8th 2011, 08:50
santo subito!!
J Degabriele
Jul 8th 2011, 08:44
"It's parliament's duty to have the law the people want. I will not be there to obstruct it"
Neither will you help it along although it's what the people want!!
"It's important the law passes"
Certainly not with YOUR help Mr. Fenech!
Claire Busuttil
Jul 8th 2011, 08:37
Mr.Fenech-another saint!!
Mr Andrea Gatt
Jul 8th 2011, 08:24
int l-aqwa li hadt iz zieda u tpoggi l parlament isahhan is siggu, u rieda tal poplu ma jimpurtakx minna, l aqwa li tihu 500euros OHRA mal paga ghalxejn u ahna l haddiema nbatu, jekk ma taqbilx mad divorzju, tidivorzjax, pero halli l min irid ikun liberu juzah
Sue De Nym
Jul 8th 2011, 08:20
I think we are being given many *lessons* as to what to do with our voting document next time around.
The Politicians' position is to be there for the people, and NOT the other way around. We vote for you so you get 500 euro raises....plus all the other frills. But, you throw mud in our face: the people chose yes to Divorce and you still refuse to vote yes, or abstain!!!
Mr john vella
Jul 8th 2011, 08:19
Sir,
This is all political showmanship!
Yesterday I tried to hear parliament on the radio and the first speaker said: "Minghajr tlaqliq jien se nivvota favur" Woppie! Good for you! What a Hero! This made me turn the radio off.
I hope this champion of democracy we will find him in our area as a member of parliament, because to my recollection with him and or without him our area is non existent for this government. Gone are all the promises made by both parties for our well being before election.
Viva kull membru li jilghab ghal gallerija. Imsiekin ahna cwiec malti.
Mr John Micallef
Jul 8th 2011, 08:03
But no conscience is shown with the squandering of people's money, or when choosing the type of people working for you, Dr. Fenech.
Dr Fenech, you are an embarassment to your party (and our part) and our country. Even the Nationalists are tired of you.
I'd hate to think that you're going to prepare and present another budget soon. Jaqbadni il-bard. Surely you could have learnt a thing or two from Mr. Dalli.
Alex Falzon
Jul 8th 2011, 07:48
Those MP's who are against the introduction of divorce should not be threatened by anyone including us citizens to vote in favour. Yes the people have decided in favour but this does not mean that MP's have to follow suit. Otherwise, we loose our democracy. Or we speak about democracy were is convenient for us...
Alex Cutajar
Jul 8th 2011, 08:26
Democracy was already shown in the referendum.. Why keep going against the result that the majority want?
Mr Mike Abbot
Jul 8th 2011, 08:54
You seriously need to look up the meaning democracy
J. Scicluna
Jul 8th 2011, 09:07
"Yes the people have decided in favour but this does not mean that MP's have to follow suit. Otherwise, we loose our democracy"
What do you mean?! Thousands voted YES and just a handful of MPs overturn that decision and you call that Democracy?
The Govt had to take a decision on Divorce and did not have the guts (or the will to lose votes) to do so and abdicated its responsibility and passed it to the People. TNow, the People have spoken and its must be respected; THAT is Democracy.
"Or we speak about democracy were is convenient for us... " precisely what your comment is doing.
guido cutajar
Jul 8th 2011, 09:13
Mitt bniedem mitt fehmha..........The only true democracy that exists is the will of the majority of the people. The M.P`s are there to serve those who elected them. They should respect what the people wants, like an employee must respect and obey the company`s decisions. If the employee is not happy with the situation, he must leave, and not the company,which in our case are the majority of the people. That is called true democracy. Although we have to respect the MINORITY the will of the MAJORITY has to rule. If just 69 members do not approve and respect the will of 54% of the voters, that is called DICTATORSHIP.
Noel Mifsud
Jul 8th 2011, 07:46
Dik responsabilita ghal min ha 500 euro zieda. Ma tivvotax flok tivvota iva jew le. Parlament tal Kummiedja isegwi Malta tad dahq. Lanqas naqra responsabilta ma kapaci jerfaw u jiehdu dik iz zieda kollha. Komplu dahqu lin nies bikom u kull meta tigu fuq l internet dawn l ahbarijeit ftakru li taqaw ghac cajt mad dinja.
guido cutajar
Jul 8th 2011, 07:38
Dan huwa kollu loghob bil bzallu........Mela ghalfejn accettajtu li immorru ghar referendum ? Ministru Tonio,...Lil l`Alla, lid Duluri, il valuri u l- kuxjenza...........dawn ghad divorzju biss jghoddu ? Li tizdied 500 ewro fil gimgha min flus il poplu min wara daharu, u lil l-istess poplu ittih 1.16 ta ewro, dak mhu xejn ghalik ? Mhux ahjar li verament infittxu il kuxjenza taghna, u naraw fejn ahna ? Bin nies tad dinja nitmejlu kemm irridu, specjalment meta inkunu fl`gholi, pero b`Alla ma jitmejjel hadd, u quddiemU kullhadd fl-istess pozizjoni ikun. Id differenza tkun fejn ser ixaqqleb il mizien.
Claudio Laferla
Jul 8th 2011, 07:11
"A Consultative Referendum" means - what is the opinion of the people regarding a topic.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in the current scenario. It has been taken as to 'do what the people want'.
We are hiding behind the 'democracy' concept yet, failing to have a 'moral society'.
I will state the following things for people to think about:
1) This legislation will definitely open the door for other things like abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage...since we have put a 'wedge' under the door of our political system;
2) The argument that 'abortion' is not like divorce is not sustained...like our fellow EU members, things will follow here like they did in other countries;
3) Divorce is a matter of conscience since it involves 'the way we live'...that is a moral issue;
4) Malta (or the world for that matter) needs a new definition of 'father', 'mother' and family;
5) Malta (like the rest of EU) has abrogated 'the natural law' in this matter regarding the family issue; The natural law does not differ between believers or unbelievers (if a robber who is an unbeliever gets caught - red-handed or otherwise - he is not above the law and still gets what he merits for the action. Whether he believes or not is besides the issue, he has done wrong);
6) A personal issue of one parliamentarian has become a National Issue...unfortunately, 'under the cry of democracy', the PM has accepted;
7) We have no alternative since the opposition is also (through their leader) in favour of divorce which, as I am of the understanding, that, once they are in power they will legislate divorce;
8) The unfairness of the question regarding the divorce issue;
9) Under the cry of 'democracy', MPs are saying 'we need to honour our constituency'; this does not clear once obligation to do 'the greater benefit';
10) If MPs are against divorce, then, they should vote NO not Abstain their vote;
11) The PN's statement against divorce is null & void if at the end of the day the party will vote for it, either some or all the PN MPs since, every PN MP is an MP of the PN.
PM Camilleri
Jul 8th 2011, 08:08
Well said indeed Mr Laferla!
Alex Cutajar
Jul 8th 2011, 08:28
Stating your comment:
"10) If MPs are against divorce, then, they should vote NO not Abstain their vote;"
Aren't MP's supposed to represent their people? Or is it just a theory?
David Caruana
Jul 8th 2011, 08:42
"This legislation will definitely open the door for other things like abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage"
Let's leave the hot potato of abortion out for now.
Euthanasia - what does it matter to you if I, FOR MY OWN SAKE, would like to have the option of mercy killing if I'm diagnosed with a terminal disease? Really, please tell me why on earth would you or anyone else would want to deprive me from this option.
Same-sex marriage - from your words it seems that same as me, you are heterosexual. So same-sex marriage won't effect your life one bit, but still, you and others think that you can have a say regarding the rights of others. Please explain why do you think that you have some right to shape someone else's life as you wish.
Well Mr. Laferla, hold on tight because liberalism will take over our country, I can assure you. You and others like you will not be allowed to meddle with other people's choices anymore.
Joseph Borg
Jul 8th 2011, 13:06
I agree with your comments. The consultative referundum was aimed to get information from all citizensthe accpetance o. Those who were in favour of divorce were 53% of those who participated . This works out to 40% of the electorate. Hence the referendum did not have the support of the majority of the electorate.
Moreover, members of parliaments are elected to lead and not to be led by the whims of the masses.
MP's who had declared to be against the introduction of divorce should not recant and go against their own declaration. Such a U Turn indicates that they are opportunists and that they are prepared to switch sides less they stand to loose votes.
The PL member Dr Vassallo and PN members Edwin Vassallo and Austin Gatt are to be applauded for their unfaltered stand even if one may not agree with their reasons..
K Cassar
Jul 9th 2011, 16:10
@ David Caruana... yeah you may do as you will with your life... your choices are your own so long as you don't implicate others
1) You may commit suicide, take an overdose or whatever.... but don't implicate health care staff who are not willing to do so... and don't imply they should be sacked as if you don't want anyone to interfere with your choice, then first learn not to interfere with others
2) Homosexuals may live together without affecting others... so long as they do not demand the right to adopt... there is no such thing as a right to a child.... but there is the right of a child to a family... and it would be unfair to impose a gay couple rather than a mother/father figure on a child who has already been abandoned by her natural parents... A child is not an object but a person with a rights and choices too, especially if these children are adopted when too young to have a say. If on the other hand the child to be adopted is a mature minor who wishes to be adopted by a gay couple, then that would be a different matter
Mr Paul Caruana
Jul 8th 2011, 05:57
Our Lady loves all her children.
The Maltese electorate on the other hand.......
Mr Anthony Pace Gouder
Jul 8th 2011, 03:42
A most intelligent decision,INDEED! A win-win result for the Hon. Minister .
Pro and Anti Divorce Blocks both made happy that he's not voting against or in favour, respectively..
Kuntent kullhadd !........... and they lived HAPPILY EVER AFTER ....
Joe Fenech
Jul 8th 2011, 01:19
Tonio Fenech:
Writing in The Malta Independent, Mr Fenech had insisted that: “the divorce debate cannot be divorced from faith” and God “has a say in the morals of... this country”.
MORALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!
--------------------------
Mr Fenech had also hit out at people who attended the processions of Our Lady of Sorrows and were irked by anti-divorce statements made during some of them.
“...I am sure Our Lady is very sorrowful Malta is considering divorce,” Mr Fenech wrote.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?! YOU SOUND LIKE AN ISLAMIC OR JEWISH EXTREMIST. QUIT !
--------------------------
I would love to quote Monty Python's Holy Grail :
BL... PEASANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alex Cutajar
Jul 8th 2011, 09:36
MORALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!
Well said :)
Christopher Grainger
Jul 8th 2011, 00:55
So long as the bill is approved .. fine, representatives may vote with thier concience, BUT their responsibility is to ensure that those that elected them are represented in that vote. That part is not negotiable. The more important facet of the legislation is how this is translated into a workable system where the rights and concerns of individuals are included in the outcome, that has to put childrens welfare first. If one thing has been consistantly missing in a polorized debate, it is the objective, to prevent children becoming the victims of a set of circumstances outside of the control of either parent .. via the state, via the church.
Historically, that has produced less than desireable results, and that is what people of all sides of the debate would probably wish to change for the future.
J. Mizzi
Jul 8th 2011, 00:55
"I am sure Our Lady is very sorrowful that Malta is considering divorce,” Mr Fenech wrote."
I bet She is! But I also bet she is also very sorrowful for the things our finance minister did or did not do!
Mr edward ciantar
Jul 8th 2011, 09:36
Ask KM employees!!!!
Sue De Nym
Jul 8th 2011, 09:46
Of course, and she is also sorrowful that some animals on the farm get 500 euro raises, whilst others get a miserly 1.16!!!!!!!!!!!
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jul 8th 2011, 00:10
Why did the times focus on Tonio Fenech? Focus on the so called justice minister, who is ready to go against the will of the people. In a democratic country he would be sacked immediately by the prime minister.
Alfred Gatt
Jul 7th 2011, 23:34
It is interesting reading the various comments of our Parliamentarians. Most of them are against but because the people voted in favour they are going to vote for it. I wonder if this is going to be the same reasoning when it comes to abortion and euthanasia? If so, then the majority can have the right to kill innocent lives and we become living in a jungle, the survival of the fittest. These are very serious matters with very serious implications.
D. Xerri
Jul 7th 2011, 23:24
And I Bet The Prime Minister will be The Last to Decide or maybe The Last to Tell Malta how is he going to Vote - Is it Strategy ? Is it Suspense ? Is it deciding to be undecisive ? Has he lost his Par Idejn Sodi on this issue ? or maybe its an Indovina Indovinello for the Media to make a good issue about thus leaving more important issues happenning in Malta aside for some other time - The Alienation of a Nation technique !
Philip Hili
Jul 7th 2011, 23:03
Mela ma ghadiex iktar KONTRA d-divorzju l-Onor. Marlene Pullicino Orlando?
Ghamlet tant tejatrin qabel ir-referendum - kontara, favur, nofs iva nofs le!!!!!
Ghax tiehdu ghalikom meta jikkwotawlkom il-parabbola ta' l-ilpup libsin ta' naghag?
Fl-opinjoni tieghi imisskom tkun grati lejn minn jikkwotaha din il-parabbola ghax veru toqghodilkom!!!!!!!
Mr Victor vella
Jul 7th 2011, 22:51
Fenek can do whatever he likes. People have spoken and whatever he likes it or not the law of divorce has to come in force. I
Mr JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Jul 7th 2011, 22:43
Dr. Mario De Marco is a true politician and there is a good sign that he will increase. I wish him well, and i sincerely wish that others in his party would start learning from him.
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Jul 8th 2011, 00:16
He would definately do a better job than the current prime minister.
joseph caruana
Jul 8th 2011, 10:39
totally agree with you,Mr.Zammit
Mr Anton Portelli
Jul 7th 2011, 22:32
"Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that he would be voting against the Bill since it was not coherent and did not clearly regulate an issue as delicate as divorce."
If Dr Mifsud Bonnici thinks that the divorce bill is not coherent it is his duty as a Minister to help make it coherent and then vote in favour to respect the will of the people!
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 7th 2011, 22:30
More cut and paste faith, dogma and imposition.
Who is going to stand up about the other short comings against the 10 commandments and other teachings of Jesus?
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 8th 2011, 04:45
Anthony Ellul. Il-veu inti wiehed minn dawk li thallat il-hass- mal.......... X'ghandu x'jaqsam il-vot tad-divorzju ma kwistjonijiet oħra. Mohhok malghuq u ma tara xejn hlief politika.----MIskin
Anthony Ellul
Jul 7th 2011, 22:27
Minister you can do what you want. The people have spoken in favour of divorce and any PN MP who obstructs it will rightly deserve to be pensioned off.
Minister you had better sort out the problems of Air Malta rather than talk about religion and review contracts whether it is in line with EU regulations or not. We are an island nation and will always remain so. The airlinre is the lifeline of te island#s economy and take note of the pilots or they will wreck you as did LCA to Air Malta.
I voted for divorce because you cannot anul a marriage with two legitamite children and make them bastards according to cannon law. There are too many wrecked marriages in Malta for annulment to work and the Church makes money out of it.
k vella
Jul 8th 2011, 08:00
very well said
Joseph Ellul
Jul 7th 2011, 22:20
I did not vote in the referendum, and I agree with Mr Fenech. He was strongly against divorce and was right to express his views. He is also right to now strike the balance.
May I also say that I found the comments by Dr Mifsud Bonnici interesting. Pity whoever wrote the Bill did not do so properly - and do so before the referendum
Mr Raymond Ambrogio
Jul 7th 2011, 22:10
I abstained too so I support Finance Minister Tonio Fenech choice.
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 8th 2011, 04:46
dahqu bik habib tal-IVA
Joseph Bartolo
Jul 7th 2011, 21:43
I am angry about one aspect of the proposed law. I voted for divorce, yes, but I did not vote for extending the maintenance of children up to the age of 23.
When my own father died, I had to start working at 17 and I still managed to get an education later in life - even up to University level. And there are even more opportunities today than in my time. So why should we be constrained in this way?
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 7th 2011, 22:38
My father died when I was 13, my mother did not have any income, but we still managed to move forward. I managed to study and achieve a good position because I wanted to. Today's children are over pampered, especially by their mothers who are keen to squeeze their menfolk dry, even though, more often than not it is the very women who antagonise the men.
K Cassar
Jul 9th 2011, 15:54
I am so grateful to my parents who continued to love and support my siblings and myself through our university years, and did not spurn us when we came of age. But then they know the meaning of love... not everyone is lucky enough to have parents who love truly